execute_script

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 1000-statement limit, permission requirement, return behavior (lastResult with affectedRows), and advises verifying side effects via SELECT. This goes well beyond a minimal description, though it does not cover transaction behavior or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the most critical constraints (permission, limit, return behavior, side-effect guidance). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permission, statement count, return shape, and side-effect verification. However, it omits transaction semantics, behavior when 'useTransaction' is false, and how errors or PL/SQL output are handled, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implies the nature of 'sql' and confirms the 'maxStatements' default limit, but it does not explain 'useTransaction' or describe how the parameters interact. Significant param semantics remain undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: '执行多语句 SQL 脚本或 PL/SQL 块' (execute multi-statement SQL scripts or PL/SQL blocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_query by emphasizing multi-statement and PL/SQL support.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for multi-statement scripts and PL/SQL blocks, and it gives a permission prerequisite ('需要 permissions 包含 script'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer boundary cases from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.